Private Investigators, Confidential Meetings, and a “Betrayal of Trust”: Inside Bryn Mawr’s Probe Into Pro-Palestinian Protests
- Hannah Epstein & Rana Rastegari
- Dec 3
- 10 min read
The email Willa Hollinger received from Tomiko Jenkins, the dean of Bryn Mawr’s undergraduate college, was as vague as it was alarming.
“I am reaching out to request a brief, confidential meeting regarding an important college matter,” it read. “Given the sensitive nature of this matter, we ask that you handle this meeting and its content with discretion.”
On June 1, a few weeks before Hollinger (BMC ’27) received the email, pro-Palestinian graffiti and vandalism had left a controversial mark on an otherwise successful reunion weekend. The incident came following a tumultuous year of campus activism: In April, campus organizations Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) faced interim suspension after disrupting an admitted students event in Goodhart Hall.
Jenkins’s email did not contain any specifics about what exactly the meeting would entail, simply stating that Hollinger’s perspective was “valuable” and that the school had “a few questions” they would like to discuss with her directly. When Hollinger asked for more information on whether she was facing disciplinary actions, Jenkins responded by saying that she was “unable to share details in advance, as the matter is highly sensitive and part of a confidential process.”
“I assure you that the conversation will be handled with care and respect for your role as a valued member of our community,” Jenkins wrote.
Over email, Hollinger scheduled the “confidential meeting” for June 24, in room 200 of the Bryn Mawr Campus Center.
Upon entering the meeting, Hollinger says no administrative official was present. Instead, she was met by two individuals—a man and a woman—who she claims identified themselves as outside lawyers hired by Bryn Mawr College.
“It was a very silent atmosphere,” Hollinger recalled. “They brought me in, and they were just at the table on the far side of the room.”
Hollinger says that the two individuals told her they were investigating the Goodhart Hall disruption. She says that they asked her about her previous campus activism with the Sunrise Movement, a climate organization in the Bi-Co, as well as the political affiliations of other students. She also claims that the individuals showed her printed photos of Bryn Mawr students at protests, asking her to identify them.
“I was thinking, like, how were these photos taken? And who took these photos?” Hollinger told The Bi-College News. “It was just really disturbing to see.” She noted that she did not provide any names or help to identify the students.
Hollinger says that the two individuals did not accuse her of breaking any college guidelines or say she was facing disciplinary action, but she still felt as though they were “trying to be intimidating.”
Hollinger recalled being so shocked by the meeting that she was “physically shaking” when she left.
“I just felt so violated,” she said.
Hollinger isn’t alone in her recounting of Bryn Mawr’s investigative procedures. Two other students told nearly identical stories to The Bi-Co News: First, a vague email from Jenkins asking them to attend a meeting. Then, being confronted by two individuals who identified themselves as either private investigators or lawyers hired by the school. All three students told The Bi-Co News that they were asked to identify fellow students based on political involvement in campus activism, and ultimately asked to keep the meeting “confidential.”
The meetings turned out to be only one part of a pattern of investigative procedures implemented by the College. Students interviewed by The Bi-Co News also made allegations that they had been followed in an off-campus location, and that administrative officials had searched dorm rooms without students’ prior knowledge for “security” reasons.
None of the students interviewed by The Bi-Co News were able to definitively recall the names of the two individuals, saying that they were only briefly mentioned or not given at all. There is no email communication from the school discussing their identities.
All of the students The Bi-Co News spoke to noted that Jenkins’ email lacked any preliminary information about the content and nature of the meeting.
Following the conclusion of the meeting, Hollinger wrote an email to Jenkins regarding what she said was a “betrayal of trust.” In it, she said that if she “had known that this meeting was going to entail me being questioned about the identity of my peers in the group Students for Justice in Palestine, I would not have attended.”
“I am offended that as part of its investigation process Bryn Mawr has, without my consent, tried to glean information from me in order to identify more student protestors and pursue legal action against them,” the email stated. “I never consented to assisting in any of that, and I am very disappointed that the school would intentionally coerce me into a meeting with unfamiliar people where I felt forced to stay in the room while they asked questions that made me uncomfortable.”
Jenkins never responded.
In a comment to The Bi-Co News, Michael and Megan Bellwoar Hollinger—Willa Hollinger’s parents—expressed concern about Bryn Mawr’s investigative procedures.
“We were surprised and disappointed that administrators would coax our daughter into a legal interrogation about events she did not participate in, with no transparency or representation, in hopes she would identify fellow students who may have been involved,” they stated. “We chose Bryn Mawr for many reasons, including its historic dedication to fairness, openness, and community, and we hope these values will be more in evidence moving forward.”
Bryn Mawr isn’t the first college to hire outside legal counsel while looking into pro-Palestinian protests. Across the nation, institutions of higher education—from the University of Michigan to Columbia University—are increasing surveillance measures against their own students.
"I am offended that as part of its investigation process Bryn Mawr has, without my consent, tried to glean information from me in order to identify more student protestors and pursue legal action against them."
“These students often have a deck stacked against them,” says Ryan Ansloan, a senior program counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). “[The university] is operating with far more resources than the students have, and they’re operating with an intimate understanding of what the process looks like. Students don’t have that information.”
“It is an intentionally opaque process,” he added.
FB, a student who requested to be referred to by only their initials, was at their summer internship when they received a similar email from Jenkins. FB said they waited in the room where their meeting was scheduled to take place for ten minutes before anyone else entered.
“[Then] they came in, and it was like these two random people. Dean Tomiko was nowhere in sight,” FB said. “No one from Bryn Mawr [was] in sight.”
FB told The Bi-Co News that the two individuals identified themselves as private investigators hired by the College to look into the vandalism incident during reunion weekend. FB claims the investigators told them they “knew that [FB had] spoken to someone” in an off-campus location the previous night who had also been called to a similar, supposedly confidential, meeting, giving FB the impression that they had been followed by the investigators.
“I do remember there being a car behind me as I was driving,” FB recalled about that evening. “I didn’t have a lot of faith in the school at this point anymore, so I was like, it could very well be like the school, but [then] I thought to myself [that] they wouldn’t do that. That would be absolutely ridiculous. And so I just continued driving, only to find out when I came into this meeting that they somehow had knowledge of my whereabouts.”
Prior to Jenkins’ request, FB said they were already on edge: A few weeks earlier, Campus Safety had left a message on their dorm room door stating that their room had been searched by both Campus Safety officials and Jenkins for “security measures.” However, according to Bryn Mawr’s website, student dorms can only be entered if the student requests it, in the case of an emergency, during winter vacation, to enforce housing policy violations, or for maintenance needs.
Jenna Mackenroth (BMC’26) was the Hall Advisor for Denbigh that summer. The same week that FB’s room was searched, the residents of Denbigh had raised concerns to her about dorm searches. However, Mackenroth says that when she called campus safety to inquire about searches, the office denied knowing anything about them. Lillian Burroughs, Bryn Mawr’s head of Campus Safety, did not respond when asked about this discrepancy.
FB told The Bi-Co News that they were not a leader in any social activism organization on campus, and no evidence was presented linking them to either the Goodhart protests or the reunion weekend vandalism.
While Jenkins’s email did not specifically state that the meeting was mandatory, FB still felt as though they had to attend.
“I do remember there being a car behind me as I was driving. I didn’t have a lot of faith in the school at this point anymore, so I was like, it could very well be like the school, but [then] I thought to myself [that] they wouldn’t do that. That would be absolutely ridiculous. And so I just continued driving, only to find out when I came into this meeting that they somehow had knowledge of my whereabouts.”
“The fact that they [had] searched my room and the administration holds so much power, especially considering that they’re ultimately who’s in charge of my financial aid and whether or not I’m getting funding from the school — There’s so many financial factors that make me feel beholden to the school,” FB said. “All of these things were running through my head, of all of the supposed punishments that they could dole out.”
These sorts of investigative practices have been subject to scrutiny by free speech experts in the past.
“Too often students feel like if they don’t answer questions the way that investigators or university officials want them to, that simply declining to answer those questions could put their academic future at risk,” says Ansloan. “It can feel like you are risking everything simply by not answering the question the way you think the investigator wants you to. That’s not how you get to the truth of the matter. It’s how you scare people into acquiescing,” he continued.
FB also claims that both investigators asked them to identify photographs of students at protests and provide them with information about their friendships with other students.
“At a certain point, they were asking me questions about a one-off occasion. Someone had overheard me saying that I had a problem with the school,” FB said. “That I quote, unquote, hated Bryn Mawr. And they asked me to explain what I meant by that, and if that’s how I actually felt about the school, and if I could see why they would think that was grounds for me to be called in.”
FB said that transitioning back into the fall semester has been difficult.
“I didn’t have a One Card for a really long time. So I’d call Campus Safety to let me into [my dorm] building,” FB stated. “I just felt so uncomfortable speaking to them, calling on the phone: What if they’re like, listening? And, I don’t even know, all of these very paranoid thoughts that probably aren’t true, but also, at the same time, I don’t know how they knew where I was.”
Sarah, a pseudonym for a student who requested anonymity due to fear of retaliation from the administration, told The Bi-Co News that she was not living on campus when she received the email from Jenkins. Like Hollinger, Sarah said she was confused initially, and when she asked for further clarification regarding the contents of the meeting, Jenkins said she was unable to offer any additional information.
Sarah noted that she was expecting Jenkins to be present at the meeting, but when she entered—like the previous student’s accounts—she was met with two individuals who identified themselves as investigators.
She says that during her meeting, the individuals made pointed accusations against her, claiming she was directly involved with both the Goodhart protest and vandalism. However, she also says no evidence was given that would have linked her to either event.
“They were basically saying, we’re going to write a report on whether or not we think you’re telling the truth, and then we’re going to give it to some ambiguous body,” she recalled from her meeting with them. “They didn’t tell me who they’re going to give it to.”
She says that the two individuals told her that the meeting could be used as evidence against her in future disciplinary proceedings. She also says she was told by the individuals that they wanted “to be able to put in our report that like we believe you [and] we think you’re telling the truth, but we can’t do that.”
“At no point in that process did I have time in advance to make an educated decision about whether or not I wanted to go to that meeting, and if they had communicated to me that they were going to be lawyers there, I would have gone to the meeting, but I would have gone to the meeting with representation.”
“At one point, they started reading out names to me of people, because one of their angles was ‘we’re gonna ask questions that we know the answer to, just to see if you’re being truthful,’” Sarah told The Bi-Co News.
“At no point in that process did I have time in advance to make an educated decision about whether or not I wanted to go to that meeting, and if they had communicated to me that they were going to be lawyers there, I would have gone to the meeting, but I would have gone to the meeting with representation,” she said.
When asked about what information students should expect when facing a disciplinary accusation, Ansloan noted that “students should have reasonable expectation that the university is going to provide them with basic, fundamental due process rights” under which, students should have “notice of what [they] are accused of, including both the policies that [they] are alleged to have violated, as well as the factual allegations that are giving rise to the investigation.”
“We are seeing universities ask questions first and provide information later, if they ever provide it, and so students should have the ability to prepare a defense, to understand what they’re accused of, and answer that knowingly,” Ansloan stated.
Neither Hollinger, FB, nor Sarah received further communication from either the College or the individuals regarding any continuation of the investigation.
Administrative Statement
The Bi-Co News sent multiple questions to Jenkins as well as Bryn Mawr president Wendy Cadge. This included requests for clarification on whether the College hired outside investigators, and why students were asked to identify the political affiliations of their peers. The Bi-Co News also asked if Bryn Mawr was aware of the investigators’ tactics and of the allegations of possibly following students to off-campus locations.
Samara A. Sit, Bryn Mawr’s vice president for communications and marketing, responded to our request for comment with the following message:
“Thank you for reaching out to us. We understand the importance of your inquiry. In accordance with federal student privacy laws, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the college is legally prohibited from discussing or disclosing information regarding specific student disciplinary matters or any information in a student’s educational record. This commitment to privacy is absolute, and while we cannot comment on individual cases, we want to assure you that Bryn Mawr College takes ALL investigations seriously. We have internal policies and procedures, such as our Housing and Residence Policies, to ensure all investigations are handled with fairness and respect for everyone involved, and we encourage community members to report concerns to our Campus Safety department or local law enforcement.”
Cadge and Jenkins did not offer any further comment.
Comments